Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#21

Post by jnordwick »

dang wrote: post #17
jnordwick wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't this ever upheld anymore? > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Ideological or political battle or talking points.

It's upheld all the time. The proportion of that stuff is no greater than it used to be. As pg once put it, "note those words most and probably". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922380

In writing you call those "weasel words":

"words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Essentially, if you were being honest, you would just say on topic is whatever we decided it is, since the intentional ambiguity basically comes down to that.

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#22

Post by dang »

jnordwick wrote: post #21
dang wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's upheld all the time. The proportion of that stuff is no greater than it used to be. As pg once put it, "note those words most and probably". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922380

In writing you call those "weasel words": "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word Essentially, if you were being honest, you would just say on topic is whatever we decided it is, since the intentional ambiguity basically comes down to that.

Can you please stop posting these tedious harangues? You've been doing it a lot, and it's off topic. Since you started doing it after we chided you for breaking the site guidelines, it also seems a bit petty.

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#23

Post by jpalomaki »

gt_ wrote: post #13
jpalomaki wrote: post #8

I've had this feeling, but not sure if it's justified. Could be also the result of more users writing comments. Since the down-voting is the tool we have been given, I have tried to be more active in using it to mark comments that take discussion to wrong direction. Some UI innovations might help here as well. Sometimes when inside thread, you see it's heading to useless direction. Would be nice to be able to collaps…

>Since the down-voting is the tool we have been given, I have tried to be more active in using it to mark comments that take discussion to wrong direction. I thought downvotes were to be used on posts which don’t move the discussion or contribute to it. For example, non-sequitors or inaccuracies. Judging which direction is “wrong” sounds like opinion abuse to me. One of my favorite parts of HN is intelligent and dive…

A clarification: With "wrong direction" I mean off-topic or for example comments which are certain to trigger a heated discussion taking us nowhere.

Different opinions are what I expect from HN, but I wish the discussion revolves quite closely around the title.

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#24

Post by mercer »

I often use HN as an archive, so I end up in very old threads when I search for particular things. As a result I quite often have tabs open with threads that are years old. And more than once I tried commenting/upvoting, thinking it was a recent thread.

I don't think you're wrong, but I do agree that it's easy to only remember the good bits. Anecdotally at least apparently old threads can be just as bad, and that's even after search for specific topics!

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#25

Post by bjourne »

krapp wrote: post #14
gt_ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Since the down-voting is the tool we have been given, I have tried to be more active in using it to mark comments that take discussion to wrong direction. I thought downvotes were to be used on posts which don’t move the discussion or contribute to it. For example, non-sequitors or inaccuracies. Judging which direction is “wrong” sounds like opinion abuse to me. One of my favorite parts of HN is intelligent and dive…

>I thought downvotes were to be used on posts which don’t move the discussion or contribute to it. For example, non-sequitors or inaccuracies. Judging which direction is “wrong” sounds like opinion abuse to me. Downvotes can be used for any reason at all, as can upvotes. AFAIK only flagging has guidelines.

Obviously, it CAN. But down voting for "any reason" (for example, should I down vote your comment because I think you are wrong?) is unlikely to foster a collegial environment.

For example, many Ask HN posts are questions asking for opinions. So you help the poster out and write your opinion. Then some dofus comes around who is to lazy to write an opinion of his or her own but wants to express disagreement by down voting your post. These dofuses' downvotes are annoying and results in people not bothering to reply to Ask HN posts anymore.

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#26

Post by jcahill »

dang wrote: post #2

These perceptions are notoriously subject to bias: first, to sample bias, because no one reads all the posts. And second, to whatever the bias is called where we notice what we dislike or annoys us far more than what doesn't, and thus overestimate how much of it there is. We see this most of all in claims of HN's political bias. Because of that, it's best to post links to specific posts to give examples of what you'r…

There is no mechanism whatsoever that identifies you as a mod. You don't even indicate this in your posts. Most of your interactions with unruly users are farcical in this regard.

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#27

Post by DoreenMichele »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #16
gt_ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Since the down-voting is the tool we have been given, I have tried to be more active in using it to mark comments that take discussion to wrong direction. I thought downvotes were to be used on posts which don’t move the discussion or contribute to it. For example, non-sequitors or inaccuracies. Judging which direction is “wrong” sounds like opinion abuse to me. One of my favorite parts of HN is intelligent and dive…

“ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171” Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

Thanks.

I generally agree with that policy. The only real downside of that is that minority views can be downvoted to hell merely for being a minority view. A side effect of that is that minority members can get a lot of downvotes simply for participating, no matter how well they express themselves, and this can feel very unwelcoming and like there is a hostile atmosphere here.

I post as openly female. It isn't uncommon for me to get a lot of downvotes and it is really hard for me infer meaningful signal from that. I often cannot readily determine if I committed some social faux pas that violates the guidelines or if I am getting some pile on of disagreement simply because I am a demographic outlier who, therefore, has a different world view and expresses myself differently.

I posit this is a de facto barrier to diversity on the site. It will cause a lot of women and other minorities to simply not bother.

In fact, someone essentially said as much to me recently. They just don't bother most of the time in part because of downvote patterns here.

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#28

Post by sharmi »

For what its worth: The same discussion was held on HN 8 years back on how the quality of discussion has fallen. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1198041

There are recurrent discussions in the same vein echoing back in (HN's) time. I suppose they crop up whenever HN goes through a growth spurt. Just guessing.

I am not against quips and puns. HN is a gathering of people with a certain area of interest and there is great fun is sharing puns that the community identifies with. There are rarely such outlets outside this arena sans an in-person meetup of aspiring startup geeks.

Having said that, such comments are usually in the mid rung and the tops ones (within an hour of posting) tends to be indepth thoughtful ones by relevant people. I have seen doctors, life guards, teachers, lawyers, and so many others from various walks of life give profound insights in the comment sections of relevant articles. So I would not discount the quality.

But discussions like this are worth for keeping the focus where it needs to be.

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#29

Post by toomuchtodo »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #27
toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171” Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

Thanks. I generally agree with that policy. The only real downside of that is that minority views can be downvoted to hell merely for being a minority view. A side effect of that is that minority members can get a lot of downvotes simply for participating, no matter how well they express themselves, and this can feel very unwelcoming and like there is a hostile atmosphere here. I post as openly female. It isn't uncom…

I agree with your thesis, and while I posted my above comment to reference what the "rules are, I upvote downvoted comments (including yours) when I think they are of substance and have been unfairly downvoted even when I may disagree with them. I try very hard not to downvote when I disagree with a comment, only if I believe it doesn't contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.

I'm often downvoted when my perspective deviates from that of the HN bubble, but I really don't mind. I'd rather have the discussion than worry about worthless internet points; if it changes even one person's mind, or helps them think or see a topic in a way they might not otherwise have, it's worth the effort put forth.

TL;DR Don't worry about the downvotes. Can't change HN policies or other people's actions and feelings, only your own.

Re: Meta HN: About the quality of discussion or rather the lack therof

#30

Post by DoreenMichele »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #29
DoreenMichele wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I generally agree with that policy. The only real downside of that is that minority views can be downvoted to hell merely for being a minority view. A side effect of that is that minority members can get a lot of downvotes simply for participating, no matter how well they express themselves, and this can feel very unwelcoming and like there is a hostile atmosphere here. I post as openly female. It isn't uncom…

I agree with your thesis, and while I posted my above comment to reference what the "rules are, I upvote downvoted comments (including yours) when I think they are of substance and have been unfairly downvoted even when I may disagree with them. I try very hard not to downvote when I disagree with a comment, only if I believe it doesn't contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way. I'm often downvoted when my per…

I am in no way worried about internet points. My concern is trying to parse social signalling. Downvotes can express rebuke of undesirable behavior here. Ignoring that fact is not a good thing.

I am very leery of concluding that downvotes can be wholesale ignored simply because I am a demographic outlier and many people will knee jerk disagree with me. That fundamentally breaks an important social feedback loop.

I didn't make it to the leaderboard by assuming I was getting pushback merely because I am female and men here are clearly sexist pigs and I can ignore their rebuke. I put quite a lot of time and effort into sorting out what I could ignore and what I needed to take seriously as an indicator that I needed to do something differently.

Granted, what I did different wasn't necessarily what other people thought I should. But that social feedback loop matters. It never works well to suggest that minorities can and should simply wholesale ignore such feedback. That goes bad places.

It has been extremely helpful to me that really ugly comments aimed at me are often flagged to death. Unfortunately, this sometimes only happens if I point it out. Then my comment pointing it out is often also flagged and/or downvoted.

It has also been extremely helpful that some people give corrective upvotes. I, also, do that to comments that I don't think really deserve to be in the negatives. Getting back to even after being downvoted feels much, much more to me like "Okay, others don't see it that way and your viewpoint is an outlier for this forum" and much less like "Shut up, bitch. No one wants you here anyway."

Post reply on HN